DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 13, and 16-20 have been amended. Claims 8, 10, 14, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 16-24 remain pending in the application.
Claim 1 is independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC § 102/103 rejections with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims to further specify:
a first printer assembly configured to perform a first additive manufacturing process with a first curable material;
a second printer assembly configured to perform a second additive manufacturing process with a second curable material, wherein the second curable material is different from the first curable material;
a processor operably coupled to the first printer assembly, the second printer assembly, the at least one sensor, and the material removal device;
forming a first portion of an object from the first curable material using the first printer assembly;
forming a second portion of the object from the second curable material using the second printer assembly, wherein the second portion is in contact with the first portion;
obtaining sensor data of the second portion using the at least one sensor;
determining whether an error is present in the second portion based on the sensor data; and
in response to a determination that the error is present in the second portion, removing a region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device.
Förster-Romswinckel US 20240100775 A1 is introduced in response to amended claims. The teachings of Wanka, Zhao, Anwar, Omori, Povolny and MUKAI as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalcik US 20130316081 A1 in view of Connor US 20240208136 A11.
Regarding claim 1, Kovalcik teaches a system comprising:
a first printer assembly configured to perform a first additive manufacturing process with a first curable material, a second printer assembly configured to perform a second additive manufacturing process with a second curable material, (Fig. 1 [0002] [0023] 3D printing system depositing material and cure material to form 3D object and Figs. 14 & 15 [0035], first and second pattern effector deposit layers to different portions independently);
at least one sensor ([0034] visual sensors);
a material removal device ([0033] object remove machine robot arm);
a processor operably coupled to the first printer assembly, the second printer assembly, the at least one sensor, and the material removal device (Fig. 14 [0037] control system); and
a memory operably coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 14 [0037] control system), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
forming a first portion of an object from the first curable material using the first printer assembly, forming a second portion of the object from the second curable material using the second printer assembly, (Figs. 14 & 15 [0035], first and second pattern effector deposit layers to different portions independently);
obtaining sensor data of the second portion using the at least one sensor (Figs. 9-13 [0032] [0034] the partially formed 61s are inspected using visual sensors at various stages);
determining whether an error is present in the second portion based on the sensor data ([0034] determining whether a partially formed 61 is being formed with defects).
Kovalcik does not explicitly further teach:
wherein the second curable material is different from the first curable material; and wherein the second portion is in contact with the first portion;
in response to a determination that the error is present in the second portion, removing a region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device.
Connor explicitly teaches in an analogous art that:
wherein the second curable material is different from the first curable material; and wherein the second portion is in contact with the first portion (Fig. 2 [0030] – [0030] [0047] additive manufacturing system with deposition assemblies 12 and 16 with different deposition mechanism and different curable materials i.e. “the second curable material is different from the first curable material” to form a part with support structure i.e. “the second portion is in contact with the first portion”);
in response to a determination that the error is present in the second portion, removing a region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device ([0096] in response to layer defect detection, remove a layer portion contiguous with defect, this layer either deposited by deposition assembly 12 or deposition assembly 16, i.e. “determination that the error is present in the second portion, removing a region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device”)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the second curable material is different from the first curable material; and wherein the second portion is in contact with the first portion; in response to a determination that the error is present in the second portion, removing a region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects with support structure, as Connor teaches in [0031].
Regarding claim 2, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches a nozzle configured to form the second portion by depositing one or more droplets of the second curable material (Figs. 1-2 [0025] [0033] deposition head with nozzle), and an energy source configured to apply energy to cure the second curable material ([0026] [0054] a heating element for curing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein a nozzle configured to form the second portion by depositing one or more droplets of the second curable material, and an energy source configured to apply energy to cure the second curable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 3, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches applying the energy to cure a remaining region of the second portion, after removing the region of the second portion (Fig. 2 [0054] [0055] [0060] [0096] [0086] [0088] the layer with defect is removed and re-deposit, the material manipulate mechanism is operated after deposition and before additive removal i.e. curing is after the layer material removal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein applying the energy to cure a remaining region of the second portion, after removing the region of the second portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 6, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches a heat source configured to heat the second curable material ([0026] [0054] a heating element for curing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein a heat source configured to heat the second curable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 7, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches an agitator configured to apply mechanical perturbations to the second curable material ([0055] vibration mechanism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein an agitator configured to apply mechanical perturbations to the second curable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 9, Kovalcik further teaches the first additive manufacturing process comprises stereolithography or digital light processing ([0038] pattern effector 90 use stereolithography).
Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the second additive manufacturing process comprises inkjet printing ([0033] inkjet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the second additive manufacturing process comprises inkjet printing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to use ink as the print material, as Connor teaches in [0030].
Regarding claim 11, Kovalcik further teaches the at least one sensor comprises an imaging device and the sensor data comprises image data generated by the imaging device ([0034] visual sensors).
Regarding claim 12, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the at least one sensor is configured to measure one or more of a velocity, an acceleration, a force, or a torque of a movable component of the or the second printer assembly printer assembly ([0070] translation rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure one or more of a velocity, an acceleration, a force, or a torque of a movable component of the or the second printer assembly printer assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 13, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the first printer assembly comprises:
a carrier film configured to support a layer of the first curable material ([0072] a material carrier layer is deposited), and
an energy source configured to form the first portion by applying energy to cure the first curable material ([0072] the resultant material is treated and manipulated including curing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein a carrier film configured to support a layer of the first curable material, and an energy source configured to form the first portion by applying energy to cure the first curable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 16, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches: receiving a digital representation of a target geometry of the second object portion, determining an actual geometry of the second object portion, based on the sensor data, and identifying whether there are any differences between the actual geometry and the target geometry ([0096] [0086] [0070] the difference between the actual layer geometry and a target geometry based on sampled image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein receiving a digital representation of a target geometry of the second object portion, determining an actual geometry of the second object portion, based on the sensor data, and identifying whether there are any differences between the actual geometry and the target geometry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Regarding claim 17, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches identifying a location of the error in the second object portion, and selectively targeting the material removal device to the location of the error ([0057] interior corners, etc., [0096] remove a layer portion identified contiguous with defect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein identifying a location of the error in the second object portion, and selectively targeting the material removal device to the location of the error. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Regarding claim 18, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the region of the second object portion that is removed is less than the entire second portion ([0096] a layer or a port of a layer of the object portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the region of the second object portion that is removed is less than the entire second portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Regarding claim 19, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the region of the second portion that is removed is the entire second portion ([0096] removing and reprinting the entire layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the region of the second portion that is removed is the entire second portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Regarding claim 21, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the first curable material comprises a resin ([0030] thermoset plastics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the first curable material comprises a resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects using the curable material, as Connor teaches in [0017].
Regarding claim 22, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the second curable material comprises an ink ([0030] ink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the second curable material comprises an ink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to use inkjet for printing, as Connor teaches in [0033].
Regarding claim 24, Kovalcik in view of Connor further teaches the first and second portions have different material properties (Fig. 2 [0030] – [0030] [0047] additive manufacturing system with deposition assemblies 12 and 16 with different deposition mechanism and different curable materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the first and second portions have different material properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to additively manufacture objects with support structure, as Connor teaches in [0031].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalcik in view of Connor as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21-22 and 24 above, further in view of ERICKSON WO 2020046267 A12.
Regarding claim 4, neither Kovalcik nor Connor explicitly further teaches the material removal device comprises a vacuum mechanism configured to remove the region of the second portion via suction.
ERICKSON explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the material removal device comprises a vacuum mechanism configured to remove the region of the second portion via suction ([0040] vacuum needle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik and Connor to incorporate the teachings of ERICKSON, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the material removal device comprises a vacuum mechanism configured to remove the region of the second portion via suction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalcik in view of Connor as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21-22 and 24 above, further in view of Buller US 20220297186 A13.
Regarding claim 5, neither Kovalcik nor Connor explicitly further teaches the material removal device comprises a charged surface configured to remove the region of the second portion via electrostatic interactions with the curable material.
Buller explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the material removal device comprises a charged surface configured to remove the region of the second portion via electrostatic interactions with the curable material ([0045] removing material using electrostatic force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik and Connor to incorporate the teachings of Buller, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the material removal device comprises a charged surface configured to remove the region of the second portion via electrostatic interactions with the curable material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalcik in view of Connor as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21-22 and 24 above, further in view of Gould US 20220048243 A1 4.
Regarding claim 20, Kovalcik further teaches the system is configured is configured to perform the additive manufacturing process to fabricate a plurality of objects concurrently using the first printer assembly and the second printer assembly (Figs. 9-13 [0031] – [0034] multiple object 61s are partially formed, Figs. 14 & 15 [0035], first and second pattern effector deposit layers to different portions independently), and wherein the operations further comprise:
continuing fabrication of one or more remaining objects of the plurality of objects ([0034] the printing of the 3D objects is resumed after the removal).
Kovalcik does not explicitly further teach:
determining whether the error is correctable,
in response to a determination that the error is not correctable, terminating fabrication of an object of the plurality of objects that includes the second portion; and
in response to a determination that the error is correctable, removing the region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device.
Gould explicitly teaches in an analogous art that:
determining whether the error is correctable (Fig. 4 [0056] [0060] determining whether the defect is critical i.e. “non-correctable” or non-critical i.e. “correctable”);
in response to a determination that the error is not correctable, terminating fabrication of an object of the plurality of objects that includes the second portion (Fig. 5 [0056] [0059] determining the defect is critical i.e. “not correctable”, end the fabrication of the object portion);
in response to a determination that the error is correctable, removing the defect (Fig. 4 [0056] [0060] in response to determining the defect is non-critical i.e. “correctable”, removing the defect); and
Kovalcik in view of Connor explicitly teaches in an analogous art that removing the defect by removing the region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device ([0096] removing and reprinting the defect layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik to incorporate the teachings of Connor and Gould, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein determining whether the error is correctable, in response to a determination that the error is not correctable, terminating fabrication of an object of the plurality of objects that includes the second portion; and in response to a determination that the error is correctable, removing the region of the second portion containing the error using the material removal device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to remove the need for expensive and time-consuming post print qualification techniques, as Gould teaches in [0056], and to reprint the defect layer, as Connor teaches in [0096].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalcik in view of Connor as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-19, 21-22 and 24 above, further in view of Förster-Romswinckel US 20240100775 A1.
Regarding claim 23, neither Kovalcik nor Connor explicitly further teaches the object is a dental appliance.
Förster-Romswinckel explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the object is a dental appliance ([0031] [0075] additive manufacturing dental applications using curable materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovalcik and Connor to incorporate the teachings of Förster-Romswinckel, because they all directed to 3D printing, to make the system wherein the object is a dental appliance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to make the dental appliance use curable materials, as Förster-Romswinckel teaches in [0075].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Kovalcik and Connor are the prior arts of record
2 ERICKSON is the prior art of record
3 Buller is the prior art of record
4 Gould is the prior art of record
Prosecution Insights